[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: IPv6 and localhost

Bill Davidsen <davidsen tmr com> wrote:
"Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <wolfgang rupprecht+gnus200901 gmail com>
Allen Kistler <an037-ooai8 yahoo com> writes:

So the question really is:  Is there a reason localhost is not both
the IPv4 loopback and the IPv6 loopback (*other* than hiding some bugs
in some programs)?  Or should Fedora (and eventually Red Hat) change
the default /etc/hosts shipped/created with anaconda?

One of the first things I do on an install is get rid of the lame
distribution /etc/hosts file.  I've done this since fc4 and fedora,
just like netbsd and openbsd has no need for the silly targeted
localhost names.  The other silly thing is the "localhost.localdomain"
entry coming first.  Really, what is that about???  "localhost" has
worked just fine for over 2 decades.  Software understands it.  What
advantage is there to rocking the boat?

Using the hosts file for the local name and the names of a few useful hosts is protection against some fascist ISP deciding to block or DNAT all DNS queries to the ISP servers. So they can block lookup of sites they deem harmful.

I'm not certain I follow how the ISP gets involved with the definition of localhost in /etc/hosts, but I haven't seen any reason not to call the lack of an IPv6 definition for localhost (specifically not "localhost6") a bug and to try to get it fixed.

My inclination is to file a bug against the F11 alpha when it comes out next week, since it's anaconda that creates the default file content. I expect some resistance to change, but I can only hope that BZ doesn't become the venue of a debate on it, though.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]